You're viewing a single thread.
What is with all the anti-meat industry posts popping up recently? It's starting to feel like an astroturf campaign...
Most likely more people being aware of it, and then people seeing those posts doing well leads to more posts like that
Arguably, you should be moreso concerned about the opposite. The industry runs well known astroturfing campaigns:
NCBA [National Cattlemen’s Beef Association] calls it “proactive reputation management”: a strategy that entails monitoring the internet for messaging opportunities, then leaping in to burnish beef’s image whenever it’s advantageous
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine
The meat industry has helped fund research and communications initiatives to minimize its links to climate change. And it has organized astroturf attacks on initiatives like EAT-Lancet
https://newrepublic.com/article/177575/never-trust-green-meat
You are literally the one posting these. It's all you appear to post about.
There are plenty of other people posting about the meat industry. I've seen people making the same comments on places. It's also in part because many people are just seeing the vegan circle jerk community posts on the all feed. That also shapes perception too
One example of someone complaining about just that on someone else's post (comment ended up getting removed by a mod because of other parts of their comment, but you can infer based on replies) https://lemmy.ml/post/16139346/11287396
Don't give up on posting. I like those posts.
Yes. Mostly one topic posters.
Vegans posting about the meat industry are the like non-gamers posting about the evils of the gaming industry with a dash of moral superiority.
It's weird for someone to center their entire online personality around something they do not do.
The example honestly doesn't make much sense to me. You take issue with someone daring to want to talk about the worker abuses in the gaming industry? Are we to forbid someone from being passionate about an issue?
Someone caring about the harm in an industry doesn't make them think they are "morally superior". Posting about the harms in an industry is to raise awareness of that harm. It's not about one self at all
Your passion is no different than that of the antiabortionists.
You won't accept nuance, you don't want to have a discussion, you want your agenda to be heard and the world to bend to your view of how things ought to be.
I do accept discussion, and rely heavily on source based discussion. I cite nearly everything I say. See how I cited two sources earlier when I made a claim about meat industry funded astroturfing
When people have critiques based on their own sources, or methodological/other critiques of the sources I provide, there is a good back and forth.
Even when other people never provide a single source, I still converse and provide sources for my claims
I qualify my claims to reflect what the data and research actually says. That's what nuance looks like. When people argue for a specific claim that makes things more complicated, I respond to their claim about that specific issue. That's also what nuance looks like
Antiabortionists cite sources too. The passion and certainty are the same.
Vegans aren't trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it. Raising the issues with it just a means to that end. There are few if any vegans arguing for a cleaner animal husbandry practices.
Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren't against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion. They aren't discussing the horrors of the abortion industry on the internet.
> Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it
If we're going to talk about ignoring nuance, making statements like that isn't doing any favors. Animal agriculture =/= the entire food industry. Plant agriculture exists as well
> Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion
The problem with that characterization is that things can really only be a personal choice with no effects on any one else when we're talking about non-sentient beings. Without that presumption the assertion makes less sense. For instance, most in the west generally don't conceptualize killing a random healthy dog as a personal choice.
Even if we set aside the creatures themselves, the environmental factors alone make it difficult to conceptualize as a pure 100% personal choice. Is it a personal choice to let an industry keep us from climate targets on their own?
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
And the issue on that end is quite fundamental. It takes a lot of feed to raise non-human animals. They lose most of the energy using it to perform body functions, move around, etc. Even best case production just comes out worse than worst case plant production for humans
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
If you tried to use something like grass-fed production instead, you'd find it generally does not scale and ends up with increased methane production
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Look at it another way - do we REALLY need that much meat production? Probably not. Vegans have been living just fine this whole tome, and meat is very resource intensive to produce anyway, so one could argue you'd get even more food from stopping.
Is it causing massive issues even aside from the suffering of animals? Yeah, agriculture plays quite a significant part in CO2 emissions. Not to mention the polluting of rivers.
Also, I don't really see your point of 'they don't want to have a discussion'. You're literally having a discussion with them right now.
Your idea of nuance would have us all sitting on our hands while unsustainable industries make the world we live in uninhabitable and put an end to humanity as we know it.
I don't commit genocide in ukraine and I very much don't support it. Why would that be different for animals that are treated even worse?
?????????????
Yeah, and those abolitionists man. Like, I get it, you don't own slaves. Can't they just shut up and lay off the slave owners?
Are you comparing animal husbandry to owning slaves?
Militant vegans are a silly people.
Of course not. Animals are inferior by nature and were made to be owned by humans. It's just the natural order of things. We even have a special word for it. We call it husbandry, isn't that cute? Just like how a husband owns his wife, women being creatures that act on instincts and emotions instead of reason.
You seem surprised that we have a special word for something that humans have been doing before written history.
Do you have any clever musings on the encompassing term, agriculture? Perhaps how it has culture in it and culture is emotions instead of reason.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I assume the title is IaM14aNDtHisDEEP!
Veganism is the logical extension of abolitionism and feminism. If you've ever wondered what side of history you would've been on, now you know.
“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women’s rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before long an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft’s arguments by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? The reasoning seemed to hold for these “brutes” too; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd. Therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case....
Difference being if we end animal husbandry Earth simply won't have those animals anymore. More a genocide really.
How many draft horse does the average farmer have now that we have tractors?
Once we lose or reduce these genetic lineages, there is no going back.
Vegans want to pretend they are protecting animals but they aren't, their ideas result in a less genetically diverse biosphere. They are hurting the longevity of our species by attempting to force others down a path that relies on technology they take for granted or more likely do not understand. You see this when they talk about animal feed corn and think we can replace those same fields at the same yields as sweet corn. They aren't agriculturists but want to tell us how agriculture ought to be.
And it's clearly an emotional position because you will reject any logic or reasoning they are present. They feel they are right and their righteousness is part of the argument.
Astroturfing implies that a corporation or government agency with large amounts of funding are paying individuals or bots to spread misinformation for their employer's financial or strategic benefit.
You might not know this, but there isn't a "Big Vegan" industry with deep pockets to financially support astroturfing. Agrobusinesses that grow vegetation make more money off the meat industry than they would if they centered their produce around vegetarian or vegan diets. Businesses that do cater to vegans barely manage to scrape by and have no margins to support social media manipulation; they barely even have budget for conventional marketing.
What you're actually witnessing is legitimate grassroots efforts to inform people about the harm that the meat industry causes. You see "astroturfing" doesn't mean "a lot of people are saying things I don't like". It actually means "grassroots campaign but fake", hence the name "astroturf", which is a fake kind of grass.
but there isn't a "Big Vegan" industry with deep pockets to financially support astroturfing.
Well then who keeps sending me all this free tofu with envelopes of cash taped to it whenever I upvote a pro-vegan meme?
Shhhh we can't let them know that George Soros is secretly a radical leftist vegan.
Astroturfing is not exclusive to corporations or government agencies. As you said, it means a fake grassroots campaign. That is it. Normal people can do the same too.
I'm not weighing on on whether THIS is astroturfing, just saying that is blatantly wrong to say it's exclusive to corporations or government agencies when human beings will also willingly put themselves into idiotic groups that do idiotic things.
That is it. Normal people can do the same too
To gain what, exactly?
Is it really that hard for you to accept that some principled people may be genuinely against something that you tolerate?
You're seeing more of it recently because veganism is actually on the rise, both because awareness about speciesism is rising and because of climate concerns. Plus you're on the fediverse, where the concentration of principled radical leftists is higher than other platforms.
when human beings will also willingly put themselves into idiotic groups that do idiotic things
And is this one of those idiotic things? Are you implying trying to reduce animal cruelty in the world is idiotic?
Is it really that hard for you to accept that some principled people may be genuinely against something that you tolerate?
All I said was that astroturfing is not exclusive to governments or corporations.
And is this one of those idiotic things? Are you implying trying to reduce animal cruelty in the world is idiotic?
Again, all I said was that astroturfing is not exclusive to governments or corporations. The only person implying anything here is you. I even went out of my way to say that I was not weighing on the current situation and was only elaborating on the "definition" that was put forward otherwise.
If you could stop shoving stances and opinions down my throat that would be great.
Just because you personally disagree with the goal of a grassroots movement does not mean it is a fake grassroots movement.
A grassroots movement is very simply a collection of people, usually belonging to a community with a shared interest, who work together to publicly advocate for a particular cause. This is contrast to a powerful or moneyed interest that lobbies for a cause that usually only benefits a small group. When a powerful or moneyed interest is paying large groups of people (or alternatively bot farms) to manufacture the appearance that a grassroots movement is supporting their cause, THAT is astroturfing. The agreeability of the cause has nothing to do with how the strategy gets labeled.
You have such a tenuous grasp on the meanings of such basic words that you might want to consider hesitating before referring to other people as idiotic.
And you might want to read someone's full message before having a conniption over your own failure of comprehension. I never said I agreed or disagreed with this. My issue was with your definition. I explicitly said that I was not weighing in on this. You were being disingenuous then and are being worse now by attacking me for a stance that you yourself invented.
It is astounding how you say that I have a tenuous grasp on anything when you openly shove stances and opinions down someone else's after they already said that they have no opinion
Flagrantly pathetic.
Grow up.
You aren't weighing in on it while blatantly implying that the group in question is "idiotic", okay buddy 🥴
You're also asserting that my definition was wrong without saying anything about how it was wrong or what would be correct.
What are you even contributing to the conversation? Why did you waste the electricity to transmit any of the utterly worthless bytes that you did? And why am I wasting my time responding?
The last question has an easy answer: I have nothing better to do while I poop. But the rest of the questions are truly a mystery.
You aren’t weighing in on it while blatantly implying that the group in question is “idiotic”, okay buddy
Again, I didn't imply shit. You decided to make that all up on your own. So lemme get the crayons and help you out here, okay kid?
I’m not weighing on on whether THIS is astroturfing, just saying that is blatantly wrong to say it’s exclusive to corporations or government agencies
Look at that, wow. Almost like it's what I said and that I'm not weighing in, huh? Kinda crazy right?
But nah. You had to ignore that so you could hyper focus on this next part and misunderstand. Then you decided to broadcast your misunderstanding and act like I was saying something else. Instead of asking for any clarification whatsoever, you immediately assumed and acted based off of it. Acted like a child no less. So like I said, here come the crayons.
when human beings will also willingly put themselves into idiotic groups that do idiotic things.
Yeah. What part of that implies anything about the current situation? Nothing, right? Right. My bit about saying idiotic groups that do idiotic things was an abstract and not weighing in on the current situation as I stated. I was talking about the act of astroturfing in general with people who group up into moronic little groups and decide to astroturf. Nevermind the fact that I said explicitly that I wasn't talking about this situation. Just that groups of people can get together and do stupid things.
Now I'm going to block you because I have zero interest in having any sort of conversation with some backhanded redditor bullshit of "Oh I actually know what you're really saying. You can't fool me. I know what you actually meant, not those words that you said, but the imaginary words in my head that I have clearly seen coming from your mouth."
You are pathetic. But let me answer your dumb fuck questions now that you have actually asked for clarification. You know, after multiple ad hominem attacks and slew of words being shoved down my throat.
What are you even contributing to the conversation?
Well, like I said, I took issue with your definition of astroturfing. It is not exclusive to governments or to corporations. That is it. That is what I contributed. A fleshing out of your disingenuous definition. I didn't care about anything else other than you acting like people can't do this type of shit and the only people on the planet who can are corporations and governments. We have seen numerous groups of people go ahead and do this shit. Want an example? Look to literally any election or group of die hard fundamentalists. Neither of those are governments and neither of those are corporations. What they are is a group of people who are neither of the things that you originally claimed were the sole groups that could astroturf.
Why did you waste the electricity to transmit any of the utterly worthless bytes that you did?
Again with your absolutely fucking insane levels of delusion. Because I don't agree with you, it's worthless. Because you've shoved every opinion down my throat other than what I EXPLICITLY STATED, it's worthless. Not because you are a shitty person who immediately started attacking someone who disagreed with you. Again, you could have asked for clarification at any point (much like you half assed are now) but didn't. You doubled down on being an asshole.
And why am I wasting my time responding?
Because you know I'm right and you are terrified of being proven wrong. You have a serious ego issue where any time someone challenges you, you have a full on fucking meltdown. You are incapable of letting someone disagree with you because you have to have the last word at every possible cost, even if it means you look like an absolute fool and lying about everything that's been said prior while openly insulting anyone who dares oppose you.
Like I said. Grow up. Now I'm going to go back to not knowing you exist and living in reality instead of whatever fairytale nonsense you've carved up for yourself where you're the main character who's always right.
I can't be bothered to read any of that unhinged raving in detail but this line jumped out to me and the irony is just delectable:
You have a serious ego issue where any time someone challenges you, you have a full on fucking meltdown.
Clearly I'm the one having the meltdown here 😂
Today I learned people sharing their opinions is "astroturfing"
They are all being posted by the same account.
Almost all the dogshit takes in this thread are being posted by the same account, but I don't accuse you of astroturfing
One person posting a lot is not astroturfing. Astroturfing is about faking the appearance that many different people support the same cause. If it's the same account doing all the posting then they're not trying to give the appearance of being many different people.
At worst you could call it spamming. But personally I hope they keep up the spamming because seeing all troglodyte meat industry shills make asses out of themselves is giving me a new lease on life.
Mfw you don't know what astroturfing is
The fediverse is just hugely left-wing and with a lot of far-flung left wing posters to boot. It’s not an astroturf campaign just a place a lot of outsiders gather.
I don’t know who would pay for this, there isn’t really any moneyed interest that would gain from turning public opinion against meat
Trolls that primarily are active on vegan communities learning they could troll here without the mods telling them to pack it up.
TIL caring about issues that cause unimaginable degrees of unnecessary suffering and also threaten to end human civilization as we know it is trolling.